tv [untitled] November 29, 2012 12:00pm-12:30pm PST
>> like to welcome everyone to san francisco's planning commission regular hearing for thursday, november 29th, 2012. please be aware that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you would like to speak on an agendized item please fill out a smear card. and when speaking before the commission, please state your name for the record. at this time we'd like to take roll. commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini is
here, but, commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0
888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 2012.1 183 t and z, the amendments to planning code to establish the fillmore street ncd, there is a request from the sponsor and supervisor to continue to december 13th, 2012. and that's all i have. >> okay. is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner antonini. >> i am present. [laughter] >> and i would like to move
continuance of item 1, item 2, item 3, and item -- those specified in item 15 to december 13th. >> second. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. and places you under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar considered or routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests. in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.
item 5, case no. 2012.1142c, 2815 diamond street, request for conditional use authorization. item 6, case no. 2012.1327t, amendments to the planning code modifying section 726.52 to permit a personal service use on the third story and above with a conditional use authorization [board file no. 12-0880]. item 7, case no. 2012.0543t, municipal code miscellaneous technical amendments, fee changes, clarifications and corrections ordinance. that's all i have. >> is there any public comment on the three items on the consent calendar? good afternoon, commissioners. my name is henry karnilowitz, [speaker not understood]. item 1 is the one i'm going to speak about. this was for a client who went
in to put in a -- >> excuse me, you need to speak to the continuance only. if you wish to speak to the item, you ask that it be removed? i thought it was for the consent. >> for the consent, yes. >> if you want to speak to it or have a question about it, pull it off the consent calendar. no, i want to say i support it. >> thank you. i just want to say thank you for the supervisor david campos for putting this through. that's basically what i'm here for. >> thank you. thank you. >> is there any additional comment, public comment on item on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner borden. >> i move to approve the items on our consent calendar. >> second. >> on that motion to approve items 5, 6 and 7 under consent, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye.
>> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yee. aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and places you under commissioners questions items and matters. item 8, consideration of draft minutes of regular meeting of november 1st, 2012 and draft minutes of regular meeting of november 8th, 2012. >> any public comment on draft minutes? commissioner antonini? >> seeing none, move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt minutes of november 1st and november 8th of this year, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners.
that motion passes unanimously. and places you under item 9, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> thanks. three things briefly. in regards to the subcommittee for secretary search, we have heard from department of human resources in regards to the classification, and we are scheduling a meeting of the subcommittee in the near future to try to go over this item and see if it's -- we're going to be able to move forward at this time. >> i'm sorry. that is out of order. we're filing an appeal. do you have an update on that? >> well, i don't have an update -- no, on the appeal. i just know that i'm reporting that i'm in receipt of something that came from them, but i don't -- you know, i'm not speaking about what our actions are going to be, just reporting on what i've received.
so, we will deal with that -- in subcommittee we'll discuss the other items, but i just wanted to make the public aware that we are in process of working on this. because this is not a calendared item, of course. number two, a couple of articles in yesterday's chronicle dealing with land use and we'll end up with the proposed arena on piers 30 and 32, written by john king, the architectural editor. i thought it was a well written article, but i can assure at least from my point of view mr. king expresses some concerns about the environmental review and its speed. and i can say that expedient and complete and thorough are not mutually exclusive, and you can do something and certainly i would expect the same analysis to be every bit as thorough. and this would be the case with any e-i-r, but that does not preclude it from moving in an
expedient manner if it can be so done. and the other very interesting article by john wildermuth, very excellent journal on the housing wars, key to city's diversity, that's the title of it. he does talk a little bit the years of protest. it's well written, but a little self-laudatory in that we have a lot of problems, still a city which once had a huge middle class and had lots of families with children and had some of the highest sale prices of anyplace. we have to differentiate. i think these things he mentioned have done a lot of good things, stopping free ways from chopping up the city, shopping another western addition destruction as happened in the '60s, but there also is a price that sometimes -- some of these things have perhaps been carried to extremes and they have added into higher prices and more process, and some of the woes
we have today. so, there's always a happy medium. but i thought it was an interesting article and i would urge you to take a look at it if you haven't already. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> we had an item on our consent calendar which raises an issue which i could not discuss in the context of consent, but which raises for me an issue i would like the department to focus on. i am talking about the 2815 diamond street atm where i personally believe that atms are starting to become more billboards and oversized signs for particular advertising for the bank [speaker not understood] rather than saying there is a convenience machine with a logo which identifies what you're supposed to do. this has been going on now for quite a few months, actually for way over a year. i raised that question months before when i saw the significant changes on the california montgomery street side for the bank of america
where two or three or four atms look like a huge bill board rather than what they're supposed to be. i question that and i would like the department to find a small slot to investigate as to whether or not we need to amend or what these particular atm is can or should be. it speaks to alteration and architecture and it speaks to advertising which i think we normally look at under different rules. that's problem number one. on the positive side, i just came back from venice, italy where i had the good fortune to attend the 13th architectural [speaker not understood] which is an international event which occurs every two years and obviously one of the most spectacular cities in the world. what i want to talk about is not the travel experience, but what the united states did in response to the general heading of the [speaker not understood]
common ground. in the past [speaker not understood] deals with architecture and focuses on the different countries. obviously the u.s. has obviously great contributions and high-rise buildings and that was for many years a reoccurring theme by which we really showed the promise of this country in developing high-rise buildings and pushing the design and the structural solutions pretty much to the extreme artist of world architecture. this time, though, and i am extremely happy about it, we really participate in the discussion about common ground. and skipping fast forward to the u.s. pavilion, we chose the response to being spontaneous interventions which focused on citizen and individual-driven innovations and improving the urban environment. and can you having to the point, san francisco featured very prominently was [speaker not understood], with urban ar
tour and urban gardens, was shared space. many of the projects were identified by name and our own, our very own david winslow was featured when he was participating as a private architect with linden alley. this is just one of many, it was beautifully put together, all the design, [speaker not understood]. and i was really proud. and i hope that somewhere on the web all of you will take a moment to see how good we looked. >> commissioner sugaya. >> another piece from the chronicle. it's actually sunday datebook and it's in their way back machine column. this goes back to 1987, november 20th. i'll just read it. it is pertinent to the planning process.
it says "november 20th, czar -- charlotte [speaker not understood] has lost the fight to prevent her neighbor from blocking her view of golden gate bridge. san francisco board of appeals by a 5 to 0 vote reversed a planning commission -- reversed a planning commission vote against the fourth floor rooftop addition by david and andrea ross en. robert feldman, director of the board said, there's no way to build anything in san francisco without blocking views, and the board reiterated last night its often stated position that neither california courts nor the statutes protect views." >> any additional commissioner comments or questions? okay, next item, please. >> commissioners, it will place you under the director's report.
item 10, director's announcements. >> no announcements that i'm aware of today that i've received from john who is currently out of town representing the department elsewhere. sorry, i'm jeff, director of [speaker not understood] standing in for john. there is a director's report in your package that identifies it. a couple matters. one, milestone achievements, those being recognition of staff that have been here for long, dedicate and had contributory periods, a number for five years. davidal enbecause, 15 years. lulu wong, remarkable 30 years. there is also a description of two grants that will department has also recently received. * >> commissioners, item 11, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic
preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners, andrea rodgers, planning department staff. this week there was no tuesday board of supervisors hearing and no land use. monday there is no report. also from the zoning administrator there is nothing to report from the board of appeals. >> there was a historic preservation commission right before the break, and they took up the c-e-q-a legislation. but beyond that, there was nothing of interest for the planning department. they continued that item for further discussion. >> okay. which will place you under the general public comment period not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction and the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items,
your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have one speaker card. >> great. and i'll call now if there is any general public comment, you can work your way up to the podium. i have one card, dino adelphio. good afternoon, commissioners. dino. i'll be efficient. [speaker not understood]. we've been trying to put some grease on the wheels or get the things going. i haven't seen any changes over the last four months. seems to be at a crucial point of knocking out mid-market. i've had a few small victories. one is finally we met some legal representation from the organization that owns these spaces. mr. mather placed the building on the vacant building list. so, they had a fine and they're going to come in through dbi, see what's going on over there.
also, we got some support from the police department. we received a cads on the address. we thought a compelling case would be having 40 citations on the address. turns out that the police had been called to the site 344 times over the last three years. so, hopefully it won't come to any of our houses 344 times in a year and if they're coming that often, something's going on. [speaker not understood], have a great meeting. >> thank you. next speaker, dan cheshire. actually, i apologize if this is on the agenda. i don't think it is. i live on 14th street near church. i had heard there is a starbucks planned for the southwest corner of market and sanchez where there is sort of a kitchen supply company now. this is nuts.
we have enough starbucks and we have pizza in the same block and pizza is much better than starbucks anyway. so, i just wanted to go on the record saying that. >> is there any additional general public comment? okay. seeing none, next item, please. >> commissioners, it will place you under your regular calendar, item 12, western soma community plan - informational discussion - no. 3. this is an informational item only. >> garv, president fong, commissioners. cory teague for staff. this is the last scheduled information hearing for western soma before the adoption hearing next week on december the sixth. this is a little unlike our previous informational hearings in that we do not have new materials for you to review for this session. it's at the request of the president to allow time for additional discussion and comments on any issues that are
unresolved or so far today have not been thoroughly discussed. so, just to run down a few of those, just as a reminder, first of all, if you are a member -- weeks ago we talked specifically about the issue of entertainment uses and proposed zoning on 11th street between harrison and folsom and we presented you with a number of options and what each of those options would entail. there was a discussion in commenting. specifically, there were a few commissioners that called out option 3b as something that was generally supportable, but we just wanted to let you know, the materials you'll be receiving next week for adoption are still proposed. if the commission wants to make a change to that zoning, you'll need to expressly vote to make that change in the future so we just need that very clear direction. related to that, part of that discussion two weeks ago was
the question of are there any projects on that corridor that are currently entitled. there are no projects on that corridor that have been titled, but not built. there is a project at 350 h street and 11th street which is called the purple building because it's large and purple and it's right across the street from slim's, basically mid-block. and that project did file for environmental review and a building permit back in 2004-2005 and there was some amount of review that happened with that project, but it did not move forward for various reasons and the architect spoke to that two weeks ago and i believe he's here again today and he can speak more to that if needed. but just to be clear, that project, if the zoning changed to sally or mwe on where that property is that district does not allow housing, that would not be able to move forward as
a residential project even though it has a bidding application in. the only way it would be able to move forward, still if the zoning changed in that way was if there was a specific grandfathering or pipeline provision included within the planning code amendment. so, just want to make that clear and put that out there. and one other issue is the overlap area with central corridor. we brought that up initially on november 1st, our first hearing just kind of setting the stage, acknowledging that there is an area of central corridor that overlaps with the western soma plan area and that, you know, our position has been to move forward with western soma as is -- as it is, and let central corridor run its process as well. but there hasn't been a lot of discussion about that issue. if you feel there needs to be, you can definitely have more discussion on that topic today as well. and then if there are any other topics that either were discussed to some degree and you want to discuss further or any new topics that we haven't
yet discussed about any of the materials in your packets, staff is here and available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. is there a task force presentation? no, okay, great. so, i'll open up to public comment. i have three speaker cards. first one is luke saferlin, sorry for the pronunciation, and john kevlin and john goldman. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is luke. i'm one of the owner of a historic [speaker not understood] in western soma on the 9th street corridor. the building has been built over the years with numerous tenants, mostly smaller tenants because of the building's layout. but the tenants range from small start ups to high profile nonprofits as well. * and really, these tenants in the area are bringing a new energy and a new life to the area to help revitalize the area. * fill and us as owners have also taken a position of doing the
same thing where we've decided to go ahead and hire extra security to patrol the neighborhood about six times a night from 6:00 a.m. till 4:00 in the morning. we also hire people to clean up the streets and graffiti. we want to help revitalize this neighborhood. now we're in a tough position because the article 11 is now being removed from the west soma plan which would essentially not allow for these type of uses. this would not only give -- not only limit the tenants that we can have in the building, but it also might inhibit us from having the tenants in the building now and they might leave to go to other areas. this really -- this article 11 in the west soma plan is a security for us to keep some of these tenants in there. and when you look at neighborhoods like eastern soma who adopted article 10 and